Crafting An Effective Immigration Policy

Separating children from their parents at the US southern border by our country’s immigration service and border patrol has created an horrific backlash against the Trump administration.  The inflammatory rhetoric of both the president and his attorney general intensified the negative reaction to the point that the policy has been walked back temporarily, but the atmosphere for crafting a responsible immigration policy for America is not apparent.

The issues involved in enabling positive immigration are complex.  Both parties are at fault when comes to addressing those issues, but it is not helpful when one party’s leader accuses the other of being in favor of “open borders.”  Lying is not a useful negotiating tactic.

A major source of the respect and influence the US enjoys in the world is directly tied to our status as a place of refuge and opportunity.  As a nation of immigrants America can hardly justify raising impossible barriers to future aspirants, but neither can we fail to impose reasonable criteria for entry. 

The first step in developing an appropriate immigration policy must be determining our objectives.  Currently, there are a multiplicity of objectives being batted around, each championed by its own group of special interests.  Trying to shape an immigration policy serving our collective national interest is being lost in the melee.

From an economic standpoint, our country gains from a reasonable stream of new citizens capable of filling a variety of jobs. The US labor force participation rate, a key factor in economic growth, has been declining since 2000 in part because of baby boomers retiring and fertility rates dropping.  Since immigrant workers tend to be younger that their American-born counterparts, they could help address this problem, but only if they are brought in under circumstances that protect the job and financial security of our existing workforce.  

Dealing effectively with immigration is also critical to our nation’s political health.  The inflammatory rhetoric characterizing the issue is hardening the partisan divide and taking on bitter racial overtones.  This is foreboding since the population of the US will likely become more racially diverse regardless of our immigration policy. 

Race is not the only demographic issue that a sound immigration policy could help us address.  As mention earlier, part of the labor force participation rate problem is the aging of our current workforce.  However, it will not be enough to recruit only young immigrant workers. We also need to maintain some age balance in our labor force.

Finally, there are humanitarian considerations.  Our Declaration of Independence expresses a firm commitment to the sentiment that all people “are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,...that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”  And it also speaks to our “respect for the opinion of mankind.”  Ignoring the plight of refugees fleeing tyranny of any origin denies our heritage, and just as the US reacts negatively when other nations treat Americans without respect, other countries will judge us harshly if we discriminate against their citizens. 

Obviously, our present immigration system has not responding well to any of these objectives.  Instead, over the years a rag bag of reactive measures have amassed each designed to appease a specific interest group.

Work visa  programs originally approved for short term needs have become permanent threats to job security and wage growth for American-born workers as well as to the ambitions of US students who see visas used to fill jobs that otherwise might be available to them in the future.

These programs respond to the immediate profit concerns of business and agricultural interests, but do little to meet the long term requirements of a stable and growing US economy.

In addition, there are in the US 11 million undocumented immigrants who have slipped through the cracks in the current system and have been living and working in this country for many years.  Most of these people are not rapists or murderers, but in general are law-abiding citizens meaningfully employed and paying taxes.

Proposals to address the status of undocumented immigrants usually begin by assuming immigrants are all criminals.  Technically, this is correct, but as a matter of practical circumstance this is a bureaucratic obstruction that prevents any common sense solution to the problem.  For the most part these people are already integrated into our country economical and socially.  The only thing they lack is citizenship which would provide the political and security protections that all Americans deserve.

It is not ideal for American citizenship be acquired in a haphazard manner.  There should be clarity as to what criteria a potential immigrant should meet.  There should be programs to recruit future citizens who can meet important needs, and there should be programs that allow the US to respond to refugees.

To develop an appropriate immigration policy our country’s political leadership needs to have an informed debate about the various issues and to recognize that success will be determined in large part by our relationships with other nations.  Border walls and guest worker programs are poor initiatives in that regard.

Conducting US Foreign Policy

The terms, “diplomacy” and “negotiation” have been heavily used in recent weeks.  Although these terms can be used in a variety of settings, including business and even personal relationships, their application in the international context has relevance in the current discussion. Significant interests of the United States are at stake based on how these terms are understood by our national leaders.

Diplomacy is sometimes used interchangeably with foreign policy, but it is not the same.  Foreign policy generally is set by political leaders with advice from diplomats, military leaders and economic experts and includes goals as well as strategies and tactics for achievement.  Diplomacy is defined as the pursuit of a nation’s goals through representation, communication and negotiation.  It is the chief instrument of a nation’s foreign policy.  And while coercion may be in the background, a primary objective of diplomacy is to avoid the use of force or punitive measures.

It is also best conducted without great fanfare and publicity.

Negotiation may be defined as the process of discussing in order to reach an agreement.  If any party asserts there are preconditions required, other parties probably will refuse to participate except under duress.  Successful negotiation is also unlikely to be accomplished in too much public glare.   

Major differences exist between governance and politics in a single country and within the international arena.  Besides the likelihood that within a single country you find greater commonality in political beliefs and cultural heritage, you also likely will find a generally homogeneous population…the United States being an exception that confirms the rule. 

Perhaps the most significant difference is the absence in the international system of an overriding authority capable of resolving any question that might arise among the individual nations who consider themselves autonomous political units and act appropriately.  Despite extraordinary efforts to establish international organizations with the power to enforce decisions none exist today, and some that once showed promise have been diminished in their effectiveness.

Because of the nature of the international system understanding the concepts “diplomacy” and “negotiation” is of infinite importance.

Dealing with human beings makes the conduct of foreign policy difficult to plot and plan for; people are complex and their motives can be difficult to ascertain.  Donald Trump is not the first US president to assume understanding the leader of another country is easy.  Lyndon Johnson was perplexed when Ho Chi Minh did not rush to the negotiating table after he promised to replicate the Tennessee Valley Authority in the Mekong River Basin.  Colossal economic development welcomed by American politicians in the Appalachian South left Vietnam’s nationalist champion unmoved.

The foreign policy decisions of a nation’s leader will be based normally on the internal circumstances of that country.  Frequently, those circumstances may appear opaque or even counterintuitive.  Even experienced diplomats and scholars can be flummoxed.  In any case, it should be recognized that the most important policy objective of any state is its survival as an independent unit.  When considering the probable behavior of Kim Jong Un in regards to North Korea’s nuclear weapons, this fact should not be underestimated.

History is strewn with examples of national leaders who were certain they knew how to shape the international system to serve their country’s national interest.  Some have been motivated by the desire to extent their ideology or belief system, some have been driven by racial or ethnic animosity and some have been motivated by personal greed or raw ambition.

Those leaders who have been most successful in protecting their country’s national interest in the long run have recognized the wisdom of approaching the international community with respect and a willingness to accept the need to moderate their own country’s goals.  Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt and Dwight Eisenhower are prime examples.

Managing power within the world order is a constant struggle.  Diplomatic representation, participation in international organizations, negotiating bilateral and multilateral agreements as well as formal treaties are all instruments nations use, but they only work when all participants accept the immediate goals in question.  It is natural that leaders of every country want their nation to prevail in most such interactions, but maintaining a viable international system cannot be a zero sum game.

History has proven that “winning” in the international arena is an ephemeral goal and it may open doors to greater losses down the road.  Attempting to gain leverage with another country through fear can prove to be a double edged sword.  It may result in the initial acceptance of a policy dictate, but inspire an ongoing effort to retaliate.  Using fear or hostile rhetoric in dealing with friendly nations or treaty allies is likely to be viewed as a betrayal and result in long term enmity.

Finally, it should be noted that the US Constitution envisions the Congress as a partner in the shaping of US foreign policy.  Since the end of the Vietnam War, however, the Congress has essentially neglected its oversight function.  This has embolden the executive to take unwise risks to our national detriment.